Lets run some Pension numbers

One thing that may be missing from your comparison is retirement healthcare. Many plans provide healthcare as part of the benefit, so you can't assume all of the city's portion would be available for you to invest.

My pension plan doesn't proved any healthcare benefits at all.
 
Actually what hurts the DB plans is what is called the final pay formula i.e. x% per year times the average of the highest y years. (In Ca I understand that Y =1 for public safety, and that overtime counts in the pay). One simple fix to that is Y=3 out of 5 and overtime can add say 15%. Or go to a more career averaged formula such as SS uses to figure the average. They take SS wages times some multiplier based upon wage changes up until you hit 62. It would result in lower payouts but limit the damage.
 
Actually what hurts the DB plans is what is called the final pay formula i.e. x% per year times the average of the highest y years. (In Ca I understand that Y =1 for public safety, and that overtime counts in the pay). One simple fix to that is Y=3 out of 5 and overtime can add say 15%. Or go to a more career averaged formula such as SS uses to figure the average. They take SS wages times some multiplier based upon wage changes up until you hit 62. It would result in lower payouts but limit the damage.

That's true, but a lot of plans, including mine, aren't like that but yet they still get lumped into the discussion of how we cant afford public pensions anymore.

With my plan "Y" =3 and ZERO overtime is included. In fact, about 20% of my pay is counted as "special" pay and is not counted either. "Special pay" could be shift pay, language pay, education pay and things like that.
 
I notice most of the long time posters steer away from these discussions probably because they're tired of them, but I'm still relatively new and ignorant so I'll jump in.
Nah, we just decide that some posters won't stop pounding on their one-key pianos and add them to our "Ignore Poster" list...
 

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom