A $101K pension ???

[flyfishnevada]

If it wasn't for that (The accounting standard) then our collective head would still be in the sand.

Isn't it just amazing what shinning a little light on a problem can do.

I agree that that accounting standard shows that many pensions are underfunded, but that system or at least others like it have some strange requirements. I know that my pension is showed to be under funded using whatever accounting methods they are required too, but that the accounting method will not allow future contributions to to be counted while future pay outs are. In other words, the future payouts are a known quantity, but the contributions are not so the aren't counted. That may be a rather simplistic description, but the fact remains that these newer accounting methods can skew the financial picture of pensions.

Pension and health benefits are just part of the compensation package that attracts people to government jobs. The rational course is to set them at a level sufficient to hire the talent we need to fill those jobs. It's a market. I would understand an argument to the effect that governments pay more than the market rate for the personnel they need, but I'm rather puzzled, because that does not seem to be what is being argued. What is being argued, anyway? Is there any coherent thought behind this feeling that government pensions are too generous?

I wonder that too. What really is the beef here? What is considered too generous and what isn't? How many years should a person work before they can take a pension? Who gets to decide? I say let the market decide. If government can't hire qualified people then they need to raise pay or benefits. If they can then they can keep things steady or even reduce pay and benefits. Unfortunately, unions often mask the market demands. Still, can you completely blame unions? They are fighting for the best they can get for their members. Politicians? Well, they need to run for office and can't just throw people under the bus left and right.

It is a complex issue. You can't very well take away benefits from retirees or near retirees. They have been planning on these benefits, lavish or not. Making people work longer has repercussions on the job market. Telling a guy like me that I will have earned my full pension at 43, but need to work until I am 55 or 60 to get won't fly either. Who wants to work another 10-15 years with no ability to gain anything? What about the idea that without these pensions and high wages in government a lot of people would never get to retire or end up on SS or welfare? Additionally, there are benefits to pensions. The info in the link may be slanted in support, but the effect can't be discounted:

The Economic Impact of Nevada PERS

This is not science. Input doesn't necessarily equal output, you know? There is no rule book. A lot of states, counties and municipalities tried to attract quality people and and gave into union demands hoping to see a return. Now, in some cases, its coming back to bite them. You could say the same about a lot of government programs. Maybe defined contribution plans are the ticket. Maybe no plans. Do any of you that are anti-pension know?

And for the record, I am the exception in Nevada. From the PERS website:

"The average teacher or state employee retires at age 61 and receives an average benefit of $2428.00, without a Social Security benefit."

Not to mention out health insurance has been eroding for several years and it never was all that great anyway. The retiree premium is over $100 a month. Family coverage ads another $300 or so dollars to that, but due the actuarial tables assuming retirees plus a spouse are older, it will cost me over $700 a month to cover myself and my wife and that is slated to maybe double this year to cover state shortfalls due to the economy!!!! Imagine paying over a thousand dollars of your $2400 pension check (although mine is more) to cover your health coverage assuming, like me, your spouse has no other coverage. We may have to dump her and buy her a catastrophic plan just to be able to afford it. She is medicare eligible, but not for like 25 years.

Also:

"The retirement system is particularly important because Nevada’s public
workers are not eligible for Social Security. The system is pre‐funded and
employees regularly contribute a portion of their wages to PERS. This
shared responsibility and advanced funding model mean investment
earnings and employees do much of the work to finance the benefits
rather than Nevada taxpayers. In 2007, investments and employee
contributions accounted for more than 80% of system revenues."

Not exactly a tax payer funded gravy train.

 

[Nords]

Not to much info... and it corrects an error that I had big time... One of the things I do not like about the military is the 20 year cliff... if you don't make it to that 20 you get nothing (again, from what I read)... kind of a silver handcuff on someone who already has 15 years in service...

Maybe that's another good reason to pay it out immediately to 37-year-olds who have put in the 20 years.

Many veterans who have less than 20 will join the Reserves/NG explicitly to retain credit for time served and get to that 20. Others will take a civil service job or one of the few private-sector jobs that will allow them to "buy" their military time in a pension plan.

I was "lucky" to not get an XO job and fail selection to O-5. When I got to 15 years of service and arrived at my next duty station, the assignment officers were more than happy to let me rot in place at a training command for five years. I gave full value for time spent there, but they wasted a heckuva good carrier battlegroup ops officer, submarine liaison officer, and all-around master training specialist. I coulda easily spent five more years on sea duty with the battlegroup staffs but they only wanted "career potential" types.

All things considered in retrospective, I should have moved to the Reserves as soon as the fun stopped... around the 12-13 year point.

Spouse had also been warned that she wouldn't make O-5 so she happily arranged her own rot-in-place job with her community. Then she unexpectedly made O-5, which surprised her assignment officer even more than her, and got the offer she couldn't refuse. They "negotiated" for almost two years but in the end she refused. The Reserves turned out to be absolutely the right move.

 

[kyounge1956]

OK... I am sure this will get a bit heated as there are two camps... but this came up during the weekend on a new segment...

They were talking about the upcoming pension crisis and how many states have a lot of trouble coming and how this is going to pit people against people.... then they talked to a NY policeman who retired at age 44(?, not sure) with 20 years of service... his pension is $101,000 plus for the rest of his life... I would bet is is COLA...

I am sorry, but I don't think someone should get full pension of 100% the day they leave either the military or a civil service job... especially when they can spike their pay... I mean, this guy worked 20 years and is likely to get 60 plus years of full salary out of the deal.. (they didn't say, but I bet they also pay for his health insurance)


Now, I do not have any problem giving a full pension with 20 years service when they get to 'retirement age'... but if you want it early, you should have it reduced... just my opinion....

This whole posting shows such a double standard. Last weekend there was a thread about how a certain individual on this forum was scoping out whether a particular set of regulations would allow him not to repay his student loan, even though he could very well afford to. I objected to his lining his pockets in this fashion, and every reply I got (before I put the thread on ignore) was "Don't get mad at him, he's just going by the rules that somebody else made". Well, what is this cop with the gold-plated pension doing? Going by the rules somebody else made. Don't get mad at him, he didn't invent the NYPD pension system.

What are you so ticked off about anyway? Unless you live in NY, you've got no justifiable beef over this cop's pension. It's not costing you a plugged nickel. How is it any of your business what kind of a pension he gets?

Anyway, you don't know that his benefit is 100% of his salary. You exaggerate how long the pension will likely be paid—by your own admission, you don't know he's only 44, and if you're right, how likely is it he will actually live to age 104? You don't know that health care is included, and you don't know the pension is COLA'd. You've just made a bunch of assumptions that make this one situation look as extreme as possible, then taken a specific case as if it were the general rule, and are using the whole thing as a club to beat up on other public employees.

Why don't you give it a rest?

Let's go to the end of your post first... I did not say he would live to 104.. what I tried to say was he was likely to be paid for 60 years (20 working and 40 retirement... which for someone in their early 40s is likely) for only 20 years of real work..

Well, that was my misunderstanding, but even taken the way you meant it, it is an exaggeration. Chances are he will not be drawing that pension for 40 years, let alone more than that, in addition to the 20 as an active employee. According to this, a 44 year-old man has only a 42% chance of living to age 84.

With the post of the article, we now know that he is getting over 115% of his final salary... I did not know he did not have to pay state or local taxes on this income... makes it even better..

What article? You didn't provide any link in your original post. As it now stands this is nothing but an unsupported anecdote.

I am not mad at him... I am mad at the systems that allow this to happen... I am mad at the laws that were passed saying that if something is given it can not be taken away...

You say I don't have to worry about this because I do not live in NY... but we have the same problem here in Texas... AND, the federal gvmt is sending a lot of money to the various states to pay for teachers and police in this crisis... which does include my money... so I actually might have a nickel in it...

Well if you're mad about problems in Texas, why don't you think of something constructive to do about it, instead of venting your spleen on the people here, who did not create the problem, are not profiting from the problem, and for those of us who don't live in Texas, can't do anything to solve the problem? Couple of ideas in case you're drawing a blank:

1. Volunteer or run to serve on the Board of the pension system. I don't know about yours, but the one here is required to have one board member who is neither an employee nor a retiree. Even if you can't be on the board, go to the meetings and advocate for whatever you think would be better than how they're doing it now.
2. If the pension system allows spiking and other abuses, become a gadfly. Make a stink about it to the people who write the rules. Make a stink about it to the other employees. People who abuse the system ruin it for the rest of us.
3. Find out whether there have been financial shenanigans. For at least some public pension systems, they are underfunded not because the benefits are unreasonably generous, but because the employer has withheld some or all of the funding they were supposed to have been putting in to match employee contributions, or offering increased benefits with no funding source to back them up. If this is the case for the system where you are, find out who the guilty parties are and help make sure they don't get re-elected.

BTW, I do not think they should change the student loan laws to allow it either... I just did not put down into words the way you did... and I also did not put down into words any negative comments on any of the forum members... I am NOT attacking the people... I am attacking the SYSTEM.. it is the people who are reading into my posts that seem to think I am attacking them.. It appears that they think the system should continue as it did when they got theirs... I don't... I also don't say we should stop paying them what they earned.... (now, there does seem to be attacks going on... I do not wisht this to happen... but I can not stop it).....

When you come up with an extreme example, make it look even worse by assuming the pension is COLA'd and there are health benefits on top of it, without presenting one iota of supporting evidence, and then present this as support for a broad claim that public employees' benefits should be cut—which is what your suggestion that the benefit should be reduced or delayed amounts to—what on earth did you expect us to think? You think maybe if someone suggested your retirement benefits should be cut, you'd see it as an attack?

 

[JBmadera]

Most of my family, father - city manager, uncles - police/fire, were public servants. At least when they started out they were "servants" (below market wage), over time, at least here in California, their salaries escalated to a point past private sector equivalents (city manager salary> director/sr director in a private firm supervising the same # of employees/same size budget), while their retirement/benefits for life didn't change.

All are very grateful of course but they also scratch their collective heads: how did it come to pass that their pay eventually far out stripped the pay of their private sector colleagues, and why, in the face of such serious budget issues here in CA were contributions and benefits never adjusted.

Sadly they all live in fear that like the airlines one day their benefits will get cut (a City here in CA went bankrupt, many more to follow, and they are worried about what happens to the pension obligations).

Now I am able to contribute up to 25% of my salary to my 401k (which I do up to the 15.5k max) and the co kicks in about 4K annually. I will need to pay for my own bene's but the bottom line - I am in control, I don't need to fret about whether or not my city or county or water district will go belly up.

To a person they would all gladly give back $$$ and bene's if all the unions in CA would participate and if every cent went to pay down debt - they are finding it very hard to "enjoy" retirement when they live fear.

 

[ronocnikral]

Policemen and firemen can't work a 'field' job until they are 65. We want the young and strong to chase those pesky teenagers over fences and to carry victims out of burning buildings. Therefore police and firemen usually get a better pension than many to retire after a 20-year working career.

I believe that is what we owe them.

However the abuse of using overtime and double-dipping on other jobs to spike the pensions is inexcusable. i also read that somewhere around 90 % of fire and police officers retire as "disabled" to spike the pension even more. I am sure that a small percentage of those people are truly disabled but clearly 90% are not.

This is just abuse.

i'm a little late to the party. i agree that most police officers can't work until 65. you can see my sister in law's father's (wife's brother's wife's father) treatment in his "later" years. not to mention that being a cop in a northern suburb of salt lake would most likely be the least amount of danger one could face (my opinion, debatable as I have never been a cop anywhere). maybe a southern suburb of salt lake would face a little less danger.

as i glossed over 3 pages of ramblings, I understand not to target the individuals, but the system. as i use to pay income taxes in two states, it's hard not to get upset at something like this. especially when you personally know one of them and feel they are gaming the system and when you pay to a corrupt state as well (Louisiana).

 

[jimnjana]

Maybe that's another good reason to pay it out immediately to 37-year-olds who have put in the 20 years.

Many veterans who have less than 20 will join the Reserves/NG explicitly to retain credit for time served and get to that 20. Others will take a civil service job or one of the few private-sector jobs that will allow them to "buy" their military time in a pension plan.

I was "lucky" to not get an XO job and fail selection to O-5. When I got to 15 years of service and arrived at my next duty station, the assignment officers were more than happy to let me rot in place at a training command for five years. I gave full value for time spent there, but they wasted a heckuva good carrier battlegroup ops officer, submarine liaison officer, and all-around master training specialist. I coulda easily spent five more years on sea duty with the battlegroup staffs but they only wanted "career potential" types.

All things considered in retrospective, I should have moved to the Reserves as soon as the fun stopped... around the 12-13 year point.

Spouse had also been warned that she wouldn't make O-5 so she happily arranged her own rot-in-place job with her community. Then she unexpectedly made O-5, which surprised her assignment officer even more than her, and got the offer she couldn't refuse. They "negotiated" for almost two years but in the end she refused. The Reserves turned out to be absolutely the right move.

I think the writing is on the wall that the federal government will revamp civil service retirement plans as well as military. IMO, TSP matching will reduce the defined benefit pension earned after 20yrs military
service/xx yrs of civil service. Don't think its gonna happen overnight, but it will happen.

While government employee compensation is hardly an issue in any political race at any level of government, deficits are. Tax payer funded pension benefits will be on the chopping block, because politicians will be looking for budget cuts that impact current government operations the least, and impact the fewest number of voters.

 

[Texas Proud]

Well, that was my misunderstanding, but even taken the way you meant it, it is an exaggeration. Chances are he will not be drawing that pension for 40 years, let alone more than that, in addition to the 20 as an active employee. According to this, a 44 year-old man has only a 42% chance of living to age 84.

What article? You didn't provide any link in your original post. As it now stands this is nothing but an unsupported anecdote.

Well if you're mad about problems in Texas, why don't you think of something constructive to do about it, instead of venting your spleen on the people here, who did not create the problem, are not profiting from the problem, and for those of us who don't live in Texas, can't do anything to solve the problem? Couple of ideas in case you're drawing a blank:

1. Volunteer or run to serve on the Board of the pension system. I don't know about yours, but the one here is required to have one board member who is neither an employee nor a retiree. Even if you can't be on the board, go to the meetings and advocate for whatever you think would be better than how they're doing it now.
2. If the pension system allows spiking and other abuses, become a gadfly. Make a stink about it to the people who write the rules. Make a stink about it to the other employees. People who abuse the system ruin it for the rest of us.
3. Find out whether there have been financial shenanigans. For at least some public pension systems, they are underfunded not because the benefits are unreasonably generous, but because the employer has withheld some or all of the funding they were supposed to have been putting in to match employee contributions, or offering increased benefits with no funding source to back them up. If this is the case for the system where you are, find out who the guilty parties are and help make sure they don't get re-elected.

When you come up with an extreme example, make it look even worse by assuming the pension is COLA'd and there are health benefits on top of it, without presenting one iota of supporting evidence, and then present this as support for a broad claim that public employees' benefits should be cut—which is what your suggestion that the benefit should be reduced or delayed amounts to—what on earth did you expect us to think? You think maybe if someone suggested your retirement benefits should be cut, you'd see it as an attack?

This seem to get your blood pressure up for some reason....


Dex had a link to an article that talked about this guy... now I can not get it unless I sign up for NY something or other.... but the article said the guy has a $101,000 something pension and his final years salary was $87,000... except that he spiked it so he could get a good pension... if you don't believe me, sign up and read the article... or, just ignore what I post... Do you think I am pulling this stuff out my ass


If you are concerned that my 60 year number is wrong.... heck, go for 50 then... 20 years working and 30 years on pension for 20 years work still does not sound like a great deal for the citizens...


The pensions for most civil servents in Texas are not way out of line... they are better than some that are putting down 1% in your poll as they are 2.2%... but there is no COLA and the people contribute to their pensions...

You can not make any difference when it comes to the police or firefighters... they are negotiated with the unions... and like most politicians they want to kick the can down the road so they try and pay less today and pay more later... I would much rather them pay more today and less later...

 

[walkinwood]

We've all seen the stories of outlandish pension deals. To assume this is the case for every public worker is wrong. What's even worse is to single out one person who honestly earned his pension. I can understand discussing how public pensions should be changed, but to point an accusatory finger at all those who've received a public pension is illogical since the retirees didn’t create the pension system they worked under.

+1
er.org is a community and I think it is unacceptable to call out a fellow member when he hasn't done anything illegal or unethical.

 

[dex]

Covet thy neighbor

Because those that do are mostly very large employers, about 21 percent of all private-sector employees are covered by a defined-benefit pension. On the other hand, 53 percent of private-sector workers had access to defined-contribution retirement plans, and 42 percent participated. On the public side, about 90 percent of 16 million local and state workers are covered by a defined-benefit pension, levels that have changed little of late. For all the media hype about private firms terminating pension plans and adopting 401(k)s, only a few public pensions have taken that step—most notably in Michigan.


++++++

Local and state pension plans also incur more retirement expenses due to annual, upward adjustments in pension annuities. For example, about two-thirds of public pensions offer automatic cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs), according to Keith Brainard of the National Association of State Retirement Administrators. Such adjustments can tack on as much as 3 percent every year to public pensions. Most also add adjustments based on investment returns, which typically padded annuities by anywhere from 2 percent to 8 percent in many plans during the roaring 1990s.
Such benefits are rare in the private sector, said Dimitry Mindlin, a managing director with Wilshire Associates, a global investment consulting firm. "I don't believe a single client of ours has [a COLA]."
It appears that most local and state employees can also depend on at least a small health care subsidy in retirement (see related article on GASB 45). That's becoming rare in the private sector. According to a 2005 report by the Kaiser Family Foundation, the share of large private employers (those with 200 or more employees) offering retiree health coverage has dropped from 66 percent in 1988 to 33 percent last year.

 

[FinanceDude]

Our local teacher's union is getting 3% COLA adds to their pensions and pay, and 3.5% added next year, based on their last union contract, and some of them are still not happy about it. Plus, full coverage, no matter how many people are in the plan, is $25 a month............I guess some folks are never happy..........

 

[Purron]

From the article Dex posted:

“The "traditional" pension is a defined-benefit plan, which comes with the guarantee of a lifetime monthly check, somewhat irrespective of the funding that underlies the promise. Another option for retirement savings is a defined-contribution plan, such as a 401(k). Here, employers and employees make contributions toward the worker's retirement, but there is no guarantee of a defined, predictable monthly annuity check. Building a nest egg for old age is primarily the responsibility of the employee, and therein lies the crucial difference.”

The convention wisdom was a defined benefit plan placed more risk on the employer. IMHO, a defined contribution plan, like a 401(k), may end up being less risky in the long run. Politics and budget constraints have put some defined benefit plans in jeopardy. Not to mention the impact of the economy, poor management, and states raiding pension plans to make up for budget shortfalls. Those will well funded defined contribution plans may come out ahead as they have more control over where and how their funds are invested and don’t have to worry about the state legislature tapping their retirement savings to fund spending and tax cuts.

My retirement funds are from defined contribution plans and DH has the traditional defined benefit plan. Which one of us has a better deal? I have control over my funds and decide where to invest and will be able to control how much I withdraw. DH's plan is fixed and he worries everytime he picks up the paper and sees another story about how the plan is underfunded. Only time will tell.....

 

[ziggy29]

My retirement funds are from defined contribution plans and DH has the traditional defined benefit plan. Which one of us has a better deal? I have control over my funds and decide where to invest and will be able to control how much I withdraw. DH's plan is fixed and he worries everytime he picks up the paper and sees another story about how the plan is underfunded. Only time will tell.....

Frankly, I think one spouse on a DB pension and the other on a defined contribution plan is the best of both worlds. You have the potential growth of personal investments combined with a base level of income security with the pension.

 

[kyounge1956]

This seem to get your blood pressure up for some reason....

Darn right it gets my BP up! The people in these stories get unusually high benefits, yet they are presented as if they are the general run of public employees. I don't think it's true and I'm sick of having it thrown in my face again and again as if I committed some sort of crime by taking a government job. I was out of work and the City was hiring. I was sick of short term jobs in the private sector and saw a chance for employment with more stability. The fact that the benefits are generous was basically just good luck on my part. I wasn't even thinking about that when I applied.

Dex had a link to an article that talked about this guy... now I can not get it unless I sign up for NY something or other.... but the article said the guy has a $101,000 something pension and his final years salary was $87,000... except that he spiked it so he could get a good pension... if you don't believe me, sign up and read the article... or, just ignore what I post... Do you think I am pulling this stuff out my ass (snip)

The pensions for most civil servents in Texas are not way out of line... they are better than some that are putting down 1% in your poll as they are 2.2%... but there is no COLA and the people contribute to their pensions...

No, I think the papers who publish these stories are looking for the most egregious examples they can find, and you are uncritically taking what they say as if it's typical of the broad cross section of public employees, when, by your own words just above, it's not even true of the public employees where you live. You use outlying examples to paint public employees on the whole as greedy and overcompensated, and you seem to think the problems with pension underfunding are entirely due to excessive benefits to which employees have not contributed—even though this also is untrue of the public employees' retirement system where you live. You allow nothing for the effect of the recent stock market downturn and ignore the disagreeable habit some governments have of cutting contribution to the pension fund when market returns were good or when they get short of cash. You think maybe those two factors have contributed to the problem of underfunded pensions? Me too. But you point the finger at one cop in one city getting a big pension, as if this were the whole story.

I think the polls I've started will show that six-figure/>100% pensions like that police officer's are the exception rather than the rule, that most public employees—like me and like the ones in Texas—have contributed significantly to their pension funds out of their paychecks while employed (I'm not complaining about that, I think it's the right way to run a pension system), that spiking and other abuses are usually not allowed, that partial or no COLA—again like your Texas system and like the City of Seattle—is more typical than full CPI-adjusted benefits, and that at least as many public retirees pay their own health insurance premiums as have paid health care included as a benefit.

In short, I think it will turn out that the whole line of argument behind these threads griping about excessive public employee pensions is a bunch of malarkey. Yours just happened to be the last straw.

 

[ziggy29]

Darn right it gets my BP up! The people in these stories get unusually high benefits, yet they are presented as if they are the general run of public employees. I don't think it's true and I'm sick of having it thrown in my face again and again as if I committed some sort of crime by taking a government job. I was out of work and the City was hiring. I was sick of short term jobs in the private sector and saw a chance for employment with more stability. The fact that the benefits are generous was basically just good luck on my part. I wasn't even thinking about that when I applied.

Please see my post in another thread.

Imagine your department had your pension frozen while another department had theirs protected. Imagine your new "lifeline" -- your defined contribution plan -- losing half its value and threatening your ability to EVER retire while you were also told you'll have to pay higher taxes to protect another department's pension plan and retiree health insurance.

Think you'd be a little angry or resentful? Now I'd agree that anger toward the employees is misplaced and unfortunate. But I think people who had the rug pulled out from them have good reason to feel a little "second class" when they are asked to get screwed a second time so some folks don't have to get screwed once.

Having said all that, I'm all for a constructive solution that brings the private sector worker *up* rather than encourage a race to the bottom which brings the retirement deal for public employees *down*; I don't want to see *anyone* get screwed. But first, IMO, we have to not only have to try to empathize with the other side's point of view, but also place the energy where it belongs -- and it's not in bashing public employees.

 

[MichaelB]

In short, I think it will turn out that the whole line of argument behind these threads griping about excessive public employee pensions is a bunch of malarkey. Yours just happened to be the last straw.

Not so much malarkey as bad journalism.

The aggregate of State and Municipal pension funds are underfunded by a substantial amount. This has been obvious for quite some time for those that looked, but for the passive media recipient awareness is recent and mostly the result of new accounting standards.

The journalist presents an example (or two) of salary to pension spiking, then alludes to this being widespread, then alleges this as the cause of pension funding shortfalls. Public media grabs it and it spreads like wildfire, facts notwithstanding.

We are going to see more of this, not less. I strongly (and cynically) suspect this media campaign is subtly influenced by our political leadership, as it successfully points the blame away from them and towards easier targets – like unions. The most unfortunate result of this is it makes it so much more difficult to build the public / private / political consensus needed to resolve.

 

[ziggy29]

We are going to see more of this, not less. I strongly (and cynically) suspect this media campaign is subtly influenced by our political leadership, as it successfully points the blame away from them and towards easier targets – like unions. The most unfortunate result of this is it makes it so much more difficult to build the public / private / political consensus needed to resolve.

Frankly, I think corporate interests and influence are leading this campaign (and many others) to divide and conquer, turning ordinary people against each other so neither can see the shared common threat. And if we can't see that threat, we can't put our differences aside to defeat it or keep it in check.

I see the real battle of our time being "populism versus corporatism" or "interests of the people versus interests of Big Business," not "Democrats versus Republicans," "liberals versus conservatives" or "left versus right." But we're fed so much rhetoric about these latter battles on the (corporate) media that we can't see the forest through the trees.

 

[FinanceDude]

It has been a change of events to a large degree. I remember in the 90's when the private secor folks didn't give a darn about the pension folks, because their 401ks were going up 25% a year like clockwork.

Throw in 9/11, and a choppy market for 10 years, and now everyone wants to rewind time and get a pension...........

 

[GregLee]

Yet another quote from "Covet thy neighbor's -- pension? Public vs. private":

For example, better than 60 percent of part-time local and state workers received pension benefits, according to a 2001 report by the Employee Benefit Research Institute. That's a perk received by few part-timers in the private sector.

Benefits to part timers can make a huge difference when the benefit is defined using base pay. If a husband and wife both work half-time, for long enough, and each retires with 50% of pre-retirement base pay, together they get 100% of their pre-retirement household income.

 

[ziggy29]

It has been a change of events to a large degree. I remember in the 90's when the private secor folks didn't give a darn about the pension folks, because their 401ks were going up 25% a year like clockwork.

Throw in 9/11, and a choppy market for 10 years, and now everyone wants to rewind time and get a pension...........

Not to sound like a broken record, but again this is where I think FERS got it right. You have both the growth potential within TSP plus a certain level of security with the pension component. When the market is soaring, you're participating in some of it. When the market is tanking, you still have a "floor" under you with the modest pension and SS.

I see no reason why it needs to be (or should be) either/or.

 

[Texas Proud]

Darn right it gets my BP up! The people in these stories get unusually high benefits, yet they are presented as if they are the general run of public employees. I don't think it's true and I'm sick of having it thrown in my face again and again as if I committed some sort of crime by taking a government job. I was out of work and the City was hiring. I was sick of short term jobs in the private sector and saw a chance for employment with more stability. The fact that the benefits are generous was basically just good luck on my part. I wasn't even thinking about that when I applied.


No, I think the papers who publish these stories are looking for the most egregious examples they can find, and you are uncritically taking what they say as if it's typical of the broad cross section of public employees, when, by your own words just above, it's not even true of the public employees where you live. You use outlying examples to paint public employees on the whole as greedy and overcompensated, and you seem to think the problems with pension underfunding are entirely due to excessive benefits to which employees have not contributed—even though this also is untrue of the public employees' retirement system where you live. You allow nothing for the effect of the recent stock market downturn and ignore the disagreeable habit some governments have of cutting contribution to the pension fund when market returns were good or when they get short of cash. You think maybe those two factors have contributed to the problem of underfunded pensions? Me too. But you point the finger at one cop in one city getting a big pension, as if this were the whole story.

I think the polls I've started will show that six-figure/>100% pensions like that police officer's are the exception rather than the rule, that most public employees—like me and like the ones in Texas—have contributed significantly to their pension funds out of their paychecks while employed (I'm not complaining about that, I think it's the right way to run a pension system), that spiking and other abuses are usually not allowed, that partial or no COLA—again like your Texas system and like the City of Seattle—is more typical than full CPI-adjusted benefits, and that at least as many public retirees pay their own health insurance premiums as have paid health care included as a benefit.

In short, I think it will turn out that the whole line of argument behind these threads griping about excessive public employee pensions is a bunch of malarkey. Yours just happened to be the last straw.

First... I NEVER said that the cop was typical... and I did NOT say that because of him all pensions should be eliminated... YOU are reading this into my posts or are using other people complaints and putting them on me...


The Texas system (from what I know) actually increase their payout when the market was going good... even though it was not required... so in this example, you get more than you were promissed...


What I want is to not have a POTENTIAL timebomb on the public taxpayers... it has blown up in a few states already, but it also looks like it will blow up in other states as well. Sure, the market over the last few years has taken their toll, but guess what.... it has come back a good way also... but the funding of many are still way below where they should be...

If we went to a DC plan, there is no potential timebomb... there is not underfunding... there is no spiking...

Also, for some reason you think that I am trying to cut off your check... I am not. I am talking about changing things going forward... there IS a problem and I think we should get it fixed instead of the heated arguments of 'I deserve this since I did that' or whatever else is being thrown at us...


As someone pointed out, it is a heated issue... look at France who wants to move the age from 60 to 62... riots in the street...

 

[MasterBlaster]

I get tired of these conversations about pensions that always repeat the same things and try to justify some scheme of what's fair. And I have been resisting making my usual comment of "who gives a rat's butt what you think is fair?" Because it is all about hiring qualified people to do the job. This new guy made it for me, and I just want to point it out because this is what it comes down to: My pension didn't start out to be such a great deal, but it became one because I became nearly irreplaceable. Rather, it's more accurate to say I became irreplaceable at a reasonable price. Remember back then? When the private sector was hiring people left and right and public sector employers like mine were offering huge hiring bonuses because they were desperate to get qualified applicants? They did something similar when they sweetened my pension but made the deal contingent on me staying just a few more years. To their minds it was just a retention bonus/incentive.

Funny thing - back then all the screaming was, "find the money put more cops on the street and keep the ones we already have." Wait five-ten years and it will be that way again.

Well you are tired. Poor man. Maybe we should all just shut up, and just pay up through the nose and ignore all the:

1)secrecy
2)nearly criminal accounting to your benefits to hide what was given away
3)the immorality of funding fat pensions over schools and other public needs
4)the collusion with liberal politicians
5)the loose rules and lack of oversight on pension spiking
6)saving years of unused "sick leave" then cashing it in the last year to spike pensions

I am tired of that

 

[NatureBoy]

Frankly, I think corporate interests and influence are leading this campaign (and many others) to divide and conquer, turning ordinary people against each other so neither can see the shared common threat. And if we can't see that threat, we can't put our differences aside to defeat it or keep it in check.

+1

Cloud their minds, and then you can have your way with them....

 

[73ss454]

Public Employee Pensions on Long Island - 2010

Here is some recent Nassau and Suffolk folks that retired from the PD and a few other public pensions. Is this a joke or what? Look to the right of the lists, these #'s are actually what these folks are getting, not including full medical, add another 20K a year for that.

http://newsdayinteractive.com/templates/simpleDB/?database=newsday_projects&table=2009_trs_pensions

Now take a look at what the teachers and administrators of the schools are getting.

This should make most of us ill.

 

[dex]

59332 Grimaldi, John V Village Of Bellerose 1986-10-01 $7.80Does this guy get health benefits?

 

[GregLee]

This should make most of us ill.

Maybe I will become ill once I understand your point. I looked at the references, and I see that teachers get higher retirement than custodians. So?