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'm sure I've got all of you beat for the LOWEST pension. Defined benefit plan froze when I was age 51. Company converted to a defined contribution plan and 401k - total contribution 6% of salary. I worked there 26 years, til age 67-1/2.
People like me retired with about 10% of final pay between the two accounts, dropping to 5% (truth) at age 75 when defined benefit account was depleted. No medical whatsoever. My current pension doesn't cover groceries. Fortunately, I've always been pretty good with money - so have more to spend now than when I worked, but it's not thanks to any retirement benefit.
Gotta love the private sector. This was a 150-year old national firm, one of the largest and most prestigious in the country. Their view - employees cost money. They really screwed over the older worker and admitted they were doing so when I confronted them about it at the time.
That really is horrible. But I don't think anyone should trust any pension plan. A lot of the government pension plans aren't in good financial shape because too much was promised.
Newsflash to the young and those with their heads in the sand: Prioritize what you can save on your own. Don't expect someone else to take care of you. Nobody will care as much about your retirement as you do.
With 27 years of service at age 65 - my monthly pension check will equal what my take home (after taxes) is now - $2600.
I've been saving @ 30% of my salary for the last 15 years and putting it toward my 401K (no employer contributions) and our Roth IRAs. Saved for both myself and my spouse who has never had a benefitted job in the last 25 years.
My SS will be about half of normal (employer does not pay into SS) but we will have a healthy portfolio thanks to our strict discipline of shoveling that 30%. My spouse's SS will be normal as he did have a full 40 credits.
^^Pension or not, more people need to be like this.
One thing that people are missing is that public pensions often come with a salary deduction to fund it. In NJ employees contribution is over 70% of the funding
Often? I thought they always did. Our retirement plan deductions are pretty high. My spouse will retire with 60% of his salary...which isn't very high anyway, and he can't get SS either. So he will have to continue to work after he "retires".
No it's not. Public employees have a percentage deducted from their pay towards their pension every month for all their years of employment. That is invested and earns returns and then is paid out a little at a time, like an annuity, so the bulk of the contributions are still in the market earning returns throughout the retiree's lifetime as he withdraws a set percentage for life. It's not like they just give it to you and charge the taxpayer. It's based upon historical market returns and actuarial data.
You do know that public employee's pay the exact same taxes that you do right?
Thank you....I can't tell you the number of times I've heard people griping about taxpayers "paying for teachers' retirements". Makes me want to slap them.
This one needs to be reposted about every 3rd post.
No it's not. Public employees have a percentage deducted from their pay towards their pension every month for all their years of employment. That is invested and earns returns and then is paid out a little at a time, like an annuity, so the bulk of the contributions are still in the market earning returns throughout the retiree's lifetime as he withdraws a set percentage for life. It's not like they just give it to you and charge the taxpayer. It's based upon historical market returns and actuarial data.
You do know that public employee's pay the exact same taxes that you do right?
The part you didn't share is that the agency also contributes. And the actuarial assumptions coupled with generous formulaes have resulted in funding level projected shortfalls that are significant and in some cases they will hit the point of no return.
This is outdated information. It used to be true that public sector workers got paid less than their private sector counterparts. In most cases, that just isn't true any more.
Yes, you area absolutely correct. It's primarily the result of the unions having the legislators, etc. in their back pocket...particular in places like CA where i received a huge pension (and promptly got the hell out of there to enjoy it in a state much more sane and without a state income tax, thank you)...
Thank you....I can't tell you the number of times I've heard people griping about taxpayers "paying for teachers' retirements". Makes me want to slap them.
This one needs to be reposted about every 3rd post.
Did you ask the other poster for a source for his claim? No.
I can tell you my source. My own personal experience. I took at 30% pay cut to work at my county job. I have many friends that work in the public sector and they make about 10-25% more than I do. I have looked at salary ranges for other jobs in other counties as well as the state and I am fortunate enough to have a job at the upper range of those equivalent jobs.
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.
