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.
I'd be all for it, as long as government employees also had all their retirements delayed till the same age. Interesting that a government employee who retired thinks private sector people should be required to work longer, (so that government employees can continue to retire early????)
i remember when folks did not want government jobs becuase the wages were too low,now the private boys have stagnated wages and cut retirements out (401k does not count) folks jealous of those pensions now
There was also the perception that government employment was for the least capable and ambitious among us with a certain stigma associated. If we could only have known the future.
I'd be all for it, as long as government employees also had all their retirements delayed till the same age.
It wouldn't make sense for a change in the early retirement age for Social Security to affect government employee pensions in that manner.
First, there is no contractual agreement between the government and those on Social Security to provide those benefits according to a specific means at a specific time, while there is such an agreement with regard to government worker pensions. While you could legitimately advocate that going forward there would be a different system funding and providing for government pensions, beside that which pertains to work performed by government workers prior to today, you cannot legitimately apply such changes to pension arrangements applicable to work prior to today.
Second, government worker pensions actually replace two separate things: Social Security and corporate pensions, 401k plans, IRAs, etc. And generally speaking, the Social Security portion is a smaller portion for folks who have participated in the pension plan for many years. So whatever impact you're talking about having would naturally have to be limited to that smaller portion of the government pensions, going forward. I could definitely get on-board with a suggestion that a change in the early retirement age for Social Security should parallel a change in early retirement provisions for government worker, pertaining only to that portion of their pensions attributable to work performed from today forth.
Of course, bringing what you've suggested into legitimacy, as I've outlined above, probably mutes the impact of what you're suggesting so much, that it isn't really worth pursuing.
There was also the perception that government employment was for the least capable and ambitious among us with a certain stigma associated. If we could only have known the future.
Some of us did and ignored the bias because oh well we did and could project down the road! Beginning retirement planning/thinking at an early stage helped keep us in the game and not leaving for what others suggested early on were greener pastures. It was a matter to me at the time of immediate or deferred gratification. Money magazine (started in 1972) helped and teaching Econ to affluent smart kids really helped as did Peter Lynch and the Magellan fund really, really helped. This was the start of the 70's and the three pillars of retirement were still a strong part of the game and the power of compounding once learned becomes a life long skill application. I mean for years I got statements from three future revenue sources that were all growing tax deferred( SS, Pension, Tax shelters) It was awfully dog gone clear what was ahead if we stayed the course. Giving two of them up when ever considered resulted in financial rejection. I did consider at a point and had some smart, well paid people asked me if I was crazy and these were folks in the private sector making good money who would say yeah but you can retire at a fixed date with more stabile planning parameters and can make assumptions we can't.
BUU: Apparently, you don't or didn't work in the private sector. There are very few private employees that get pension plans. Fewer still that get employer paid health insurance for life like so many retired government employees. Cutting anything in which the government hands out free money to its friends in order to gain votes and sustain their jobs and power will not happen in any substantial way until the democrats run the country right down the toilet. Face it folks, we're circling the drain.
BUU: Apparently, you don't or didn't work in the private sector.
I do and did, so your reply isn't starting off well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by augiedogie
There are very few private employees that get pension plans.
You must have stopped reading what I wrote in the middle of a sentence at the beginning of the second paragraph. I'll repost it for you here, so you can read it, and then post a reply based on the entirety of what I wrote, instead of just part of it:
Second, government worker pensions actually replace two separate things: Social Security and corporate pensions, 401k plans, IRAs, etc.
The paragraph continues:
And generally speaking, the Social Security portion is a smaller portion for folks who have participated in the pension plan for many years. So whatever impact you're talking about having would naturally have to be limited to that smaller portion of the government pensions, going forward. I could definitely get on-board with a suggestion that a change in the early retirement age for Social Security should parallel a change in early retirement provisions for government worker, pertaining only to that portion of their pensions attributable to work performed from today forth.
I'm looking forward to your revised reply to what I wrote.
BUU: Apparently, you don't or didn't work in the private sector. There are very few private employees that get pension plans. Fewer still that get employer paid health insurance for life like so many retired government employees. Cutting anything in which the government hands out free money to its friends in order to gain votes and sustain their jobs and power will not happen in any substantial way until the democrats run the country right down the toilet. Face it folks, we're circling the drain.
As noted earlier some of the best state pension plans are in deep Red long time Republican states. Why do they have pensions if it is all the fault of Democrats. Can you name the Republican presidential candidate who is a Governor in a solid Red state who is collecting both a state pension and Governors salary at the same time and still doing so? Take a guess anyone and then scroll down for the link answering the question.
GOP presidential hopeful Rick Perry is collecting his state pension while also drawing his salary as Texas governor, according to documents released Friday.
Quote:
The Texas Tribune reports Perry, 61, officially retired in January and is drawing on his retirement benefits early. He now collects $7,698.96 a month on top of his $150,000 salary. All told, that would mean he makes more than $242,000 a year before taxes.
In Iowa, Perry defended his decision to collect his retirement benefits early. "I would be surprised why someone would not take a retirement they were eligible for. That's just kind of good estate planning in my opinion," he said, according to The New York Times.
So is it really political parties or good estate planning?
There was also the perception that government employment was for the least capable and ambitious among us with a certain stigma associated. If we could only have known the future.
I know many military and government retirees that did little more than walk a coffee cup around for half of their careers. They have a good retirement and I have none other than SS, so they were clearly the smart ones.
I know many military and government retirees that did little more than walk a coffee cup around for half of their careers. They have a good retirement and I have none other than SS, so they were clearly the smart ones.
Am I correct in my reading from this that you were in the military and office with them to actually see their work habits and job performance? Am I correct from your only having SS that you neglected to invest in any tax shelters or even taxed investment accounts?
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.
