big disappointment in ohio public pension!

[ripper1]

Quote:

Originally Posted by almost there Me too. I am getting let go in 2 weeks with 29 yrs at 51. Missed retirement by 3.9 yrs. (Not that it meant anything these days) Missed all the grand father clauses except medical. (Yea.... I made 0ne!) With Oblamo care around the corner who knows if I will even keep that. 85% coverage till 65 for now. Will wait and see if it changes next year. Its just a bad time to be in our shoes. Game changing at the very end sucks the farts out of dead chickens. Not to mention the interest rates. Always planned on a million dollars and 5% in CD's would do it. Now? WTF? I blame lots of things on this. But have to stay positive and make the right moves. (If I can)

Well, I for one am rooting for you fella.

[TuborgP]

I am evidently in a different situation than most of you folks so I will exit your conversation. Best of luck.

[almost there]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ripper1 Well, I for one am rooting for you fella.

Dont worry too much, as I saw this coming a long time ago.
I worry more about those with a defined benefit that thinks things cant change when the money runs out.
Or those banking heavily on the stock market..

[TuborgP]

Are you suggesting a person is better off with no pension and no stock market nest egg?

[almost there]

I am just saying there will will always be someone with a lot more, and someone with a lot less.

Find your spot.

[TuborgP]

Fortunately being 65 and retired since my 59 1/2 I hear we are in the more camp. We have planned for a 25 percent reduction in pension and SS. Fortunately we are blessed and can comfortably do that. Thats why I say our situation is different.

[almost there]

I think its fortunate being 51 over 65 LOL LOL.
(Kidding) sort of.......

[TuborgP]

In reality with all the changes taking place I will take being 65 retired and in our situation. It has played out very well for us. My SIL is a recent Ohio retiree and I understand what folks here from Ohio are talking about.

[almost there]

If your happy, Im happy!

[CH]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kongmen With the new legislation l will be going from 41.25% of my final average salary for 25 years and 55 years old to 27.5% Unbelievable!! And no health care till 60 years old. I have just over 5 years to make up some ground. This is just your basic public service position not law enforcement it is ohio public employees retirement systems (OPERS) version of early retirement 25 years of service and 55 years old.

I would love to have a deal like that! Where I work, we don't have any pension, just a 401k. I would LOVE to have 27.5% of my final salary as a pension! There is no employer health care provided after you retire. We are expected to work until 65. Most people would think you still have a very sweet deal!

[almost there]

An xtra $2800 per month would be nice!
But if I were banking on 50k per yr I would be pissed.
Actually if my plan had not changed IN 1999 I would be getting
92K per year after 30 yrs. LOL LOL
Rather than 12k per yr or 250k cash ballance. LOL LOL
Something to remember. Things change.

[Dwhit]

Quote:

Originally Posted by CJHorne I would love to have a deal like that! Where I work, we don't have any pension, just a 401k. I would LOVE to have 27.5% of my final salary as a pension! There is no employer health care provided after you retire. We are expected to work until 65. Most people would think you still have a very sweet deal!

A broken promise/contract is still wrong, regardless of the situation. Imagine if the government decided to confiscate your 401K because they needed the money. I am sure someone would pipe up and tell you your are lucky, they would LOVE just to have a job.

[farmerEd]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dwhit Imagine if the government decided to confiscate your 401K because they needed the money.

They confiscate a bit more of it everyday, they just raise taxes.

[CH]

Quote:

Originally Posted by youbet Are your already earned credits being reduced in value? Or just the credits you will earn between now and retirement? That is, if you have ten years with OPERS, are those ten years still being credited with the old formula and only your remaining fifteen years will be worked under the new, reduced formula? Or is this just a change in the rules for early retirees? Have they done anything that would reduce the pensions of folks who are already retired? I'm asking all the questions because Illinois is in the midst of "reforming" pensions and I'm curious as to whether any other state has already set precedent regarding reducing the value of already earned pension credits or reducing the pensions of already retired folks.

In PA, our governor has been trying to reform pensions but not getting too much support from the legislature. Governor wants to give everyone what they earned so far and reduce going forward. The union is promoting a position that the state constitution guarantees benefits for life...meaning benefits can be increased but never decreased. Their view is benefits can only be changed for new employees.

Benefits will have to be reduced eventually because the current system is not sustainable. Government only seems to access when it gets to the crisis point. It would be a lot healthier for everyone if they would make changes sooner rather than later.

Pensions have almost disappeared from the private sector and health care costs are largely shared by employees. We don't understand why it takes so long for these changes to be enacted by the government.

[clifp]

While I agree it sucks to hear about the changes so late in the game and the changes the OP seem more dramatic than I would have guessed, as I said in the how to fix pension plan thread, simply cutting benefits for new workers won't be enough.

To me one of the biggest changes that has to be made is to put benefits on a actuarial sound basis. As rule early retirement reductions are not nearly severe enough and things like buying pension credits are too cheap. So I applaud Ohio for doing this politically painful steps now, when the crisis is meal acute rather than waiting another decade or two and ending up like Detroit.

While I can certainly understand the OP frustration. The reality is Ohio like many states underfunded its pension by an amount roughly equal to 10% of their workers pays for the last 20 odds years.

So one way of looking this is your pay was 10% higher than it should have been during your career, you or 10% of your colleagues should have lost their jobs, or Ohioans should have been paying roughly 7% higher taxes (payroll is roughly 70% of the cost of most state, local agencies..

[utrecht]

Quote:

Originally Posted by clifp While I can certainly understand the OP frustration. The reality is Ohio like many states underfunded its pension by an amount roughly equal to 10% of their workers pays for the last 20 odds years. So one way of looking this is your pay was 10% higher than it should have been during your career, you or 10% of your colleagues should have lost their jobs, or Ohioans should have been paying roughly 7% higher taxes (payroll is roughly 70% of the cost of most state, local agencies..

I'm going to have to disagree with this. The worker's pay wasn't 10% higher than it should have been. The worker was hired and told what his pay would be. That's what his pay should be. Its not their fault that corrupt politicians underfunded and / or borrowed from the pension fund to pay for their pet projects.

[TuborgP]

The value of pension benefits is not just the multiplier used to calculate benefits but the salary range it is applied to. Higher income area employees will come out ahead and lower behind. The retirement trick is to work in higher income areas and when retired transplant that higher pension to a nice low cost area.

[Spanky]

Quote:

Its not their fault that corrupt politicians underfunded and / or borrowed from the pension fund to pay for their pet projects.

Agreed - it's not the worker's fault. You can blame the politicians or the worker's union. But in the end, the workers will get short end of the stick. The lesson is that you cannot trust any entity (business or even the government) to deliver their promises and develop a contingency plan (i.e., additional saving, LBYM, work more years, etc) in advance.

[ESRwannabe]

I have eleven years and counting vested into a generous state pension. Fortunately my state pension has been well run and the state has always provided 100% of the funding that they are supposed to do. I think most state pensions have gotten into trouble because the state did not fund them 100% every year.

Recently there were changes made to the pension for new hires, which make it less generous. I didn't pay that much attention to it as it will not affect me.

I don't worry about my pension anymore than I worry about social security. It is out of my control and I will not be surprised if I do not get 100% of what I am supposed to get.

Its not that big of a deal to me because I make over twice my living expenses from my w-2 income and my investments bring in around the same as my living expenses every year already. So I am making three times what I need.

I'm 37 and if I want to I could work to 56 and retire with full pension benefits (i.e. 30 years). It is possible I'll end up doing that but for right now my plan is to ESR around 45, working part-time and using my taxable account investments to pay for the rest of my living expenses. Then a full retirement at 59.5 when I can tap the 401k, Roth IRA and pension (19 years). Then when I am 65+ start taking social security.

[utrecht]

I cant figure out how government agencies get away with not making the contributions they are supposed to make. Isn't there some law that covers that? It seems to me that they should lose their bond rating if they don't fulfill their obligations.