Simple Change to public employee retirement programs (1 Viewer)

[CalGun]

What would be so wrong as to make one's defined benefit plan for retirement from government service based on all of their income over all of their years instead of just the average income of the last one to three years? Why would that be so "harmful" to public employees? At the same time government agencies would easily be able to set aside the proper retirement savings so there would be no shortfall when retirement occurs.

Right now, in some areas like mine in California, a public employee can earn 50% more retirement for one year of higher paid service (like that of a deputy principle) and the school never aside the money for 50% more for the life of a retiree. That's just criminal.

 

[Fisher]

public pensions need to be replaced with IRA's. Nothing should be done to reform that which should be abolished.

 

[specklebang]

I think you answered your own question

What would be so wrong as to make one's defined benefit plan for retirement from government service based on all of their income over all of their years instead of just the average income of the last one to three years? Why would that be so "harmful" to public employees? At the same time government agencies would easily be able to set aside the proper retirement savings so there would be no shortfall when retirement occurs.

Right now, in some areas like mine in California, a public employee can earn 50% more retirement for one year of higher paid service (like that of a deputy principle) and the school never aside the money for 50% more for the life of a retiree. That's just criminal.

 

[Manc Skipper]

Most public employees such as teachers, or nurses, are women. Their work history tends to be fragmented due to children and family committments leading to part-time working. This is reflected in the meagre pensions of the majority of the public sector workforce. Yes it would be harmful to cut that pension by 50%. Duh.

 

[MaggieD]

What would be so wrong as to make one's defined benefit plan for retirement from government service based on all of their income over all of their years instead of just the average income of the last one to three years? Why would that be so "harmful" to public employees? At the same time government agencies would easily be able to set aside the proper retirement savings so there would be no shortfall when retirement occurs.

Right now, in some areas like mine in California, a public employee can earn 50% more retirement for one year of higher paid service (like that of a deputy principle) and the school never aside the money for 50% more for the life of a retiree. That's just criminal.

They should have the same kind of retirement plan that the people paying for their "Cadillacs" have -- Social Security and 401K's. If it's good enough for 70% of workers? It's damned well good enough for them.

 

[ttwtt78640]

What would be so wrong as to make one's defined benefit plan for retirement from government service based on all of their income over all of their years instead of just the average income of the last one to three years? Why would that be so "harmful" to public employees? At the same time government agencies would easily be able to set aside the proper retirement savings so there would be no shortfall when retirement occurs.

Right now, in some areas like mine in California, a public employee can earn 50% more retirement for one year of higher paid service (like that of a deputy principle) and the school never aside the money for 50% more for the life of a retiree. That's just criminal.

There should be no more defined benefit pensions - problem solved. There also should be no gov't employee exceptions to "contributing" to the Social Security system either. The Detriot "pension problem" was caused by politicians (morons?) "guaranteeing" those working for them that they would get X% of their final pay plus COLA (and medical care insurance) based on an un(der?)funded account and allowing them to "skip" worrying about Social Security.

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

There should be no more defined benefit pensions - problem solved. There also should be no gov't employee exceptions to "contributing" to the Social Security system either. The Detriot "pension problem" was caused by politicians (morons?) "guaranteeing" those working for them that they would get X% of their final pay plus COLA (and medical care insurance) based on an un(der?)funded account and allowing them to "skip" worrying about Social Security.

In my state here are the facts: The background paper scrupulously documents the little-known fact that public employees in Massachusetts hired after July 1, 1996,
pay the vast majority of the costs of their own pensions; the taxpayers pay very little. In fact, taxpayers pay a minimum of $220 million
a year less than they would legally be required to pay if those employees received the same benefits as private-sector workers and
participated in the Social Security retirement system.
http://www.massteacher.org/advocati...iles/PDFs/Advocating/Pensions/Pension_FAQ.pdf
With that said, we didn't have a corrupt politician stealing and underfunding the system.

 

[ttwtt78640]

In my state here are the facts: The background paper scrupulously documents the little-known fact that public employees in Massachusetts hired after July 1, 1996,
pay the vast majority of the costs of their own pensions; the taxpayers pay very little. In fact, taxpayers pay a minimum of $220 million
a year less than they would legally be required to pay if those employees received the same benefits as private-sector workers and
participated in the Social Security retirement system.
http://www.massteacher.org/advocati...iles/PDFs/Advocating/Pensions/Pension_FAQ.pdf
With that said, we didn't have a corrupt politician stealing and underfunding the system.

:lol: :doh Strange math here, MA considers iteself NOT to be an employer thus makes no federal SS contribution on behalf of its employees, somehow that "saves" money. :roll:

I do the same thing, it is called working off the books, but with one HUGE distinction - none of my salary comes from your taxes.

What this calculation lacks is considering that between the employee/employer SS contributions that is 12.4%, but the employee is not contributing some "outside funds", only that given to them by the MA taxpayer, so that 11% plus the 2% added by the MA taxpayers is 13%.

12.4% is not less than 13% and the retirement age is lower than that for SS, meaning that more years of retirement benefits are also paid. To assert that this system saves any MA tax money is simply insane.

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

:lol: :doh Strange math here, MA considers iteself NOT to be an employer thus makes no federal SS contribution on behalf of its employees, somehow that "saves" money. :roll:

I do the same thing, it is called working off the books, but with one HUGE distinction - none of my salary comes from your taxes.

What this calculation lacks is considering that between the employee/employer SS contributions that is 12.4%, but the employee is not contributing some "outside funds", only that given to them by the MA taxpayer, so that 11% plus the 2% added by the MA taxpayers is 13%.

12.4% is not less than 13% and the retirement age is lower than that for SS, meaning that more years of retirement benefits are also paid. To assert that this system saves any MA tax money is simply insane.

You're post makes no sense.

 

[ttwtt78640]

You're post makes no sense.

It makes complete sense. MA pensions cost the MA taxpayer more than SS pensions would. If I pay you a $50K salary in MA tax money does it make any difference whether or not you spend 11% of that for your retirement fund? Why not have the MA taxpayers pay them $45.5K in salary and add $2,821 to match SS for them? That would cost the MA taxpayers over $2,000 less per year AND the teacher would take home more pay.

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

It makes complete sense. MA pensions cost the MA taxpayer more than SS pensions would. If I pay you a $50K salary in MA tax money does it make any difference whether or not you spend 11% of that for your retirement fund? Why not have the MA taxpayers pay them $45.5K in salary and add $2,821 to match SS for them? That would cost the MA taxpayers over $2,000 less per year AND the teacher would take home more pay.

Is not quite that simple in the fact if I'm put back into the SS system, I become eligible to collect all of my funds. Currently, I get a small fraction and will only be able to collect a third of my husband's SS if I survive him. The taxpayer clearly makes out on such a deal. I make up for that loss in the fact my returns are larger than for SS.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Is not quite that simple in the fact if I'm put back into the SS system, I become eligible to collect all of my funds. Currently, I get a small fraction and will only be able to collect a third of my husband's SS if I survive him. The taxpayer clearly makes out on such a deal. I make up for that loss in the fact my returns are larger than for SS.

But MA is not able to give higher returns and at less cost to the taxpayer than SS. That was the assertion of your OP, to which I replied. Of course more money paid into a pension system will allow for greater benefits, but your OP asserted that less money was being paid by MA taxpayers than would have been required under SS.

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

But MA is not able to give higher returns and at less cost to the taxpayer than SS. That was the assertion of your OP, to which I replied. Of course more money paid into a pension system will allow for greater benefits, but your OP asserted that less money was being paid by MA taxpayers than would have been required under SS.

N/T I was explaining how you cannot use your method without putting other factors into play.