Retired at 54, pensionless at 74

[Cattusbabe]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/01/bu...n.html?_r=1&hp

[Trek]

Idiots like that guy crack me up. Works for 30 years making as much as 50 - 60K a year. Apparently puts no money aside himself to supplement his retirement, which he knew in advance he would take early in the 30-and-out program. Then get's his standard pension when he chooses to quit his job at 54 and complains it's not the life he's used to. LOL

He's used to blowing 60K a year without a worry in the world apparently. Brings a tear to my eye.

[Midpack]

Not even worth commenting...more tiresome entitlement-minded nonsense.

[ziggy29]

From the article:

Quote:

“What we’re getting isn’t enough to live on,” said Dwayne Humphries, a 54-year-old G.M. retiree in Arlington, Tex., who completed his 30 years last year, retired, and is now getting the standard $3,150 a month, or $37,500 a year. Roughly half of the total, $19,000 a year, is the basic benefit. The rest duplicates Social Security.

Complaining about a $37,500 a year pension at age 54? Just shut up. I'd practically kill for that.

[freebird5825]

No crocodile tears here.

[haha]

Save your tsk-tsking folks, the only pensions worth worrying about, and the only truly abusive ones, are in the public sector.

Notice the reference to "spiking" in public pensions? A completely corrupt practice in a completely corrupt system.

Ha

[ziggy29]

Quote:

Originally Posted by haha Save your tsk-tsking folks, the only pensions worth worrying about, and the only truly abusive ones, are in the public sector.

That would be even more true if the line between public and private sector weren't being blurred by so many bailouts in the so-called private sector.

And yeah, the spiking is a problem. It's part of what killed Vallejo -- cops, for example, often volunteered to work ridiculous amounts of overtime for their last few years of service and, in some cases, doubled their pension (as early as age 50 or so).

[W2R]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ziggy29 Complaining about a $37,500 a year pension at age 54? Just shut up. I'd practically kill for that.

I wouldn't feel too comfortable about it being from GM, though. Sure, GM is still in business right now but who knows what changes might occur in the next decade or two.

Also I am not clear on whether the pension is COLA'd or not. If it isn't, then he could have problems down the road.

The article says he isn't getting SS on top of the pension - - I gather that some of his pension replaces his SS.

Most of us would have saved a nestegg, though! Gee.

I can (almost) sympathize with this guy. Even though I will be in an exceptionally good position to retire in November, retirement will mean that instead of getting paid every other Tuesday like clockwork, everything will depend on my calculations being correct. Giving up a job in this economy is a little scary, like stepping off a cliff. Sounds like this guy never thought about that and misses that regular paycheck.

[huusom]

Quote:

Originally Posted by haha Save your tsk-tsking folks, the only pensions worth worrying about, and the only truly abusive ones, are in the public sector. Notice the reference to "spiking" in public pensions? A completely corrupt practice in a completely corrupt system. Ha

I completely agree. Federal, states and local goverment workers are getting a great deal at tax payer expenses. No wonder why there are so much wastes.

Like most, I've worked continously in the private sector for the last 33 years and have nothing to look forward to except for SS benefits.

I'll shed no tears.

[BunsGettingFirm]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ziggy29 From the article: Complaining about a $37,500 a year pension at age 54? Just shut up. I'd practically kill for that.

Thank goodness you said kill. I was worried for a second that you were going to say marry.

As for the person portrayed in the article, he came off sounding like a whiny 5 year old because he kept saying that 37.5k is not enough. His situation is not great not because of the amount his is receiving but because of the fact that more than 1/2 of his income is from a non-COLAed pension from a company with uncertain future.

Like Haha said, it's the public sector pensions that are going to cost the tax payers an arm and a leg. Spiking is truly despicable.

[ziggy29]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Want2retire Most of us would have saved a nestegg, though! Gee.

Well, I think that's part of the problem. I think to some degree, knowing you have a big pension coming may "anesthetize" people when it comes to saving your own wad for the third leg of the "retirement income stool." This makes them particularly vulnerable to insolvent pensions that may not last -- and they have no personal savings to fall back on. People in this situation also need to roll their own inflation protection.

Still, isn't $37,500 below the limits of what PBGC will cover? I'd think he's safe unless the government goes under completely.

[W2R]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ziggy29 Well, I think that's part of the problem. I think to some degree, knowing you have a big pension coming may "anesthetize" people when it comes to saving your own wad for the third leg of the "retirement income stool." This makes them particularly vulnerable to insolvent pensions that may not last -- and they have no personal savings to fall back on. People in this situation also need to roll their own inflation protection.

You are SO right about that. I have noticed that federal employees under CSRS (the old system), who have larger pensions, almost never seem to have much of any nestegg saved at all when they retire. They are probably anesthetized when it comes to saving a nestegg, as you pointed out.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ziggy29 Still, isn't $37,500 below the limits of what PBGC will cover? I'd think he's safe unless the government goes under completely.

I hadn't thought of that! Good point. He would probably get reimbursed by PBGC. And hopefully the pension is COLA'd - - if it wasn't, the article would probably have mentioned that (tearfully).

[lets-retire]

Quote:

Originally Posted by haha Save your tsk-tsking folks, the only pensions worth worrying about, and the only truly abusive ones, are in the public sector. Notice the reference to "spiking" in public pensions? A completely corrupt practice in a completely corrupt system. Ha

I can see where retiring at 62 years old and getting 33% of top three years average is a bit abusive after 30 years service. NOT!

[haha]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lets-retire I can see where retiring at 62 years old and getting 33% of top three years average is a bit abusive after 30 years service. NOT!

Cherry-picking?

[ziggy29]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lets-retire I can see where retiring at 62 years old and getting 33% of top three years average is a bit abusive after 30 years service. NOT!

I'm not sure that's the typical public sector pension, at least not at the state and local level. Sounds more like FERS to me. And when most people talk about unsustainable public pension costs, FERS isn't what comes to mind.

[Leonidas]

Quote:

Originally Posted by haha Notice the reference to "spiking" in public pensions? A completely corrupt practice in a completely corrupt system.

Let's not forget that the reason these pension funds are screwed up is because the politicians stuck their racoon paws in and started playing games.

Quote:

"While Vallejo may become the beginning of the trend," [Chicago-based bankruptcy attorney James] Spiotto says, "we ought to be looking at alternatives." Over the years, he points out, local leaders made spending decisions and assumed the next administration would be able to deal with it. "This has been a gift we've given to each generation, and sooner or later, we'll have to deal with it. It's becoming a growing reality that that sooner is coming now."

My pension is an independent body separate from the city's finances, and it did just fine until they gave us our first contract. The politicians, unwilling to fully fund competitive salaries, started robbing the pension plan by creating an artificial pension increase through contract manipulation. In the end the pension system had to file suit against the city. Ultimately, a new administration came in that balked at paying the fiddler for a tune called by prior administrations and they renegotiated the contract.

As for spiking, most of that has been removed from the current contract. But, as least in my case, it wasn't the employees' creation. The city made the proposal knowing the impact on the pension, they just didn't care. They wanted to backload the contract rather than pay more up front. When employee negotiators questioned the tactic (especially the "spiking" issue), the city tossed out numbers that showed a negligible impact and urged them to accept the deal.

I can't deny that many of us questioned the fiscal soundness of some of those provisions in the first contract, but we were told "the city gave us most of the money on the backside, it's the only way they would do it, take it or lose it." My pension did spike because of my last year at work, and although I definitely did not shy away from any opportunities to increase it, the greatest boost to the pension came from the city moving me around to benefit its operations.

As a taxpayer and an employee, I trusted the folks writing the checks to make sound fiscal decisions and stay within a budget. Boy, was that silly!

[Kabekew]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ziggy29 I'm not sure that's the typical public sector pension, at least not at the state and local level. Sounds more like FERS to me. And when most people talk about unsustainable public pension costs, FERS isn't what comes to mind.

When I worked at the FAA, it was 25 years service any age or 20 years age 50, and 50% high three. After 9/11, pay grades spiked so the average controller was making $150,000 a year and because it can't go down, they're still making that.

I could have had a $75K a year pension for life, retire at age 47, all at taxpayer expense! Retirement was all anyone with over a decade of service ever talked about, and every pay day everybody sat around looking at their pay stubs with $$$ signs in their eyes. Only 4 hours a day of work, 4 weeks vacation a year and all that money. I loved it as an employee but was disgusted as a taxpayer.

[W2R]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ziggy29 I'm not sure that's the typical public sector pension, at least not at the state and local level. Sounds more like FERS to me. And when most people talk about unsustainable public pension costs, FERS isn't what comes to mind.

Yes, that is the standard FERS pension for the vast, vast majority of federal employees on FERS (with the exception of federal law enforcement, flight controllers, and other positions that require early retirement due to physical requirements of the job).

[lets-retire]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kabekew When I worked at the FAA, it was 25 years service any age or 20 years age 50, and 50% high three. After 9/11, pay grades spiked so the average controller was making $150,000 a year and because it can't go down, they're still making that.

With 12(d) (the law enforcement, air traffic controller, nuclear materials courier enhancement) retirement O/T is not taken into consideration for the law enforcement jobs. The only exception I know of for the law enforcement type jobs is Customs and Border Protection Officers (not Border Patrol), who receive 1/2 of their O/T figure included for the calculations. Their O/T is limited to 35k per year and there is a provision that does not allow "spiking" the system. If there is a large increase in O/T the last 3-5 years it is not included in the calculation. Federal law enforcement does have something called administrative uncontrolled O/T and law enforcement availability pay that is included, but those are capped at 25% of base pay. All of the retirements under 12(d) are limited to 53%. That is if the person started working in the covered position at 18 years old and goes to the mandatory retirement age of 57. I don't see too many 18 year olds getting a 12(d) covered position. I would think it would be very difficult for someone in their early 20's to obtain most of the 12(d) covered positions.

[Leonidas]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lets-retire Federal law enforcement does have something called administrative uncontrolled O/T and law enforcement availability pay that is included, but those are capped at 25% of base pay.

Do both of those still exist? I thought AUO was replaced by LEAP.

LEAP is not a bad idea if managed well. I supervised a federal task force of feds, state, local and military for a number of years and had to constantly deal with all of their different overtime systems. From a supervisor's viewpoint the LEAP was good because I knew that my federal agents didn't "run out" of overtime and were available to work extra hours regardless of budget cycles. The only down side was occasionally I would have one balk about "working for free". Usually a reminder of the AUO/LEAP pay was good enough to bring them in line, but a couple of times the reply I got was "but I get paid for that without working extra while you guys get paid overtime."